| Revision as of 01:02, 16 July 2006 editSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits →Original Research #2← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:58, 14 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,266,918 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Cooperatives}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (183 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
<!-- From Template:Oldafdfull -->{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|date=1 July 2006|result=no consensus|page=Charles Buell Anderson}} |
|
| width="48px" | ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
|| This article was nominated for ] on ]. The result of ] was '''no consensus'''. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Cooperatives|importance=}} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid}} |
|
{| class="messagebox" style="background: {{{1|#D8E3FA}}};" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}} |
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <div align="center">This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to ] when responding to comments on this talk page. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{TOC float right}} |
|
|
Please feel free to place any comments, suggestions or questions regarding Endeavor Academy here. {{unsigned|Scottperry}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this school meet ] or ]?? ] 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the importance of this article, are there any headlines, or anything else of national recognition that show the dispute between this school and its student to be on the scale of perhaps Waco, or otherwise notorious? If not, then this page looks more like some sort of troll bait. I removed both the self-advertising link, as well as the unsourced anti-advertising link. This school may indeed exist, but it doesn't appear to be as notable as say, Columbine High School, or any other media breaking school. It doesn't appear to meet ] either. ] 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I can't answer your questions, but it is standard to include a link to the official website of any subject, be it a person or institution. So far as I can see, there's no reason to adopt a different standard for this article. -] 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever standard you are mentioning is news to me. It may be standard for people and/or organizations to add one without a sufficient review of policy, but that doesn't change policy at all. What could be the purpose for such a link, especially since anything on pages there couldn't be used for any content? ] 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::], see item #1. The purpose is so that readers wishing to learn more have an authoritative link. It's not true that we can't use a subject for a source. They have just as much significance as a source as any other. We don't exclude autobiographies as sources, we just recognize that they are another POV. -] 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see that now in the Style Guide, however, according to the ] guidelines: Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Misplaced Pages. ] a vehicle for ] or a mere collection of ]. You are, however, ] to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the ] to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thanks. <!-- Template:Spam --> ] 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Adding a link to the official website is not "spamming" Misplaced Pages. -] 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:According to ] primary sources cannot be used, except for information about themselves, and also only if the information pertains to the subject's notability. ] 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== possible copyright violation of Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has listed Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg as a possible copyright violation. Reasons unknown. —] 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, if you go to the listed source of the image, you will find nothing there at all except a test page. Images need to list their source as well as rationale for why they may be used as fair-use, etc. See ] ] 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Relevence == |
|
|
|
|
|
About the two external links on this page. What is the relevence? ] 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Original Research == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this article have any sources? ] 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No, it has: zero + however many are in it, and will be added in response to your request for citations. :) ] 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge Proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
:''copied from ]'' |
|
|
I was looking over the final results of this article's AfD, and I didn't see anyone that explicitly had a problem with merging this into ]. I don't think it would be hard to put together a short, well-referenced article at Endeavor Academy that included all of the verifiable info here. I'll leave this open for discussion for a while, but if no one objects I'm going to be bold and merge it myself. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 08:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Be bold. The objection took the form of those who specifically voted to delete after a merge had been proposed. I haven't any objection to a merge at all. I do, on the other hand, have an objection to extremely thick conversations over umpteen individual issues that get bogged down into long talk pages which are difficult to traverse and lead toward a standstill rather than any consensus. If you think that we can discuss the newly merged article with that in mind, I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks. ] 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Done. —] 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::nice job. ] 04:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cleanup == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article needs to be factually verified, cleaned up in general after the recent merge. ] 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Original Research #2 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will, I'm reverting your insertion because it is unsourced. A + B does not equal C. There isn't any mention of anyone at the Endeavor Website named Anderson. "Master Teacher", yes. Anderson? no. By the way, there isn't anything on that site, nor in the articles about anyone writing a book. ] 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are numerous references to the fact that the head of the Endeavor Academy is called the "master teacher", and many references to Anderson as the master teacher. If it isn't him, then who do you think runs the place? -] 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Exactly, A + B does not equal C. It is not up to '''me''' to think who runs the place. That is original research. Comparing two different sources for making that assumption is synthesis. About your recent addition, using the source "Sects on the beach". Do you have that resource handy? I do. Here is what is added to the article: "advertises branch centers in Germany, Spain and Columbia. A former residential community in Byron Bay, Australia, however, has closed after facing many legal and financial difficulties." and cited to "Sects on the beach". There isn't any of the words "advertise" or "advertises" anywhere in that article, not even the prefix "adver". There isn't any mention of either Germany, Spain, nor Columbia in that article either. So that leaves us with: "A former residential community in Byron Bay, Australia, however, has closed after facing many legal and financial difficulties." The only mention of any "residence" pertains only to Byron Bay, Austrailia, and here is the quote: |
|
|
<pre> |
|
|
"Business at the Miracle Centre would seem to be booming. |
|
|
The church is exercising its option to buy the adjoining Epicentre complex, a |
|
|
Byron landmark, and has a development application lodged with the local council |
|
|
for a 40-room motel for the site. If approved, Poppe |
|
|
intends handing the project over to a developer and using the proceeds to |
|
|
dramatically improve the church and its facilities. His |
|
|
devoted supporters insist much good has been accomplished under him, so much so |
|
|
that a number of acolytes have moved into the compound behind the church or |
|
|
taken up residence in nearby units on the Belongil Spit." |
|
|
</pre> |
|
|
::... also notice that there isn't any mention of Anderson there. None of the information in the predicate of that statement can be included citing the resource "Sects on the beach". ] 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Let's break this down. Do you deny that the leader of the Endeavor Academy is the "master teacher"? -] 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is not up to '''me''' to deny anything. It is up to whomever includes the information to supply a reliable resource. Per ], "2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." As an administrator, I am surprised to see that you aren't familiar with that. ] 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Second, if Anderson is not connected to the academy then why did we merge his biography? -] 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I did not propose a merge, I proposed a delete. The merge was proposed by three other people in the AfD. All of those people were contacted in regard to the matter being a "disputed merge" or not. Another editor suggested being bold. I agreed that I hadn't any contest with that idea, and a third editor performed the merge. You might contact them individually in that regard. ] 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If Anderson is not connected to the Endeavor Academy then we should undo the merge. It's senseless to have a biography of an unconnected individual in this article. -] 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::PS: Adding merge tags to an article is tantamount to proposing a merge.. Also, you wrote that you didn't object to a merge, and told another editor to go ahead and do it. I don't understand why an editor would endorse a merge, then delete the material once it was merged on the basis that a merge shouldn't have occurred. -] 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::As mentioned, you should speak to those that proposed the merge. Applying merge tags to correctly without bias express the wishes of three other editors is a matter of simple maintenance. Should their viewpoints have been ignored? |
|
|
::::::# Merge bio (with much trimming) to the school article --KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::# Strong Keep or Strong Merge to Endeavor Academy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::# Strong Merge with Endeavor Academy. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::# ] |
|
|
::::::# |
|
|
::::::] 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm having a really hard time assuming good faith from Ste4k at this point. We already had this conversation on the ] page. She was referred to , which identifies Charles Anderson as the leader of Endeavor Academy and the Master Teacher. That she continues to debate this is borderline psychotic. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 20:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Leadership == |
|
|
|
|
|
About this section and its references: |
|
|
|
|
|
Endeavor Academy is headed by its primary teacher and founder, Charles Buell Anderson. He is referred to by his students as "Master Teacher," and writes and publishes books under this name. |
|
|
*{{cite web |
|
|
|url=http://www.endeavoracademy.com/meet-us/meet-the-master-teacher/meet-the-master-teacher.html |
|
|
|title=Meet The Master Teacher |
|
|
|author=Endeavor Academy |
|
|
|accessdate=2006-07-15 |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
*{{cite web |
|
|
|url=http://www.xensites.com/eyeoncults/factnet.htm |
|
|
|title=A comparison of FACTNet’s criteria with Endeavor Academy. |
|
|
|author=FACTNet |
|
|
|accessdate=2006-07-15 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
There isn't any mention of either authoring or books in either of these sources. The first source (primary) mentions nothing about students referring to anyone. In itself, its claims are very POV, a little far fetched, i.e. as ] coming from a primary source speaking about itself, they are both contentious and self-serving or self-aggrandizing. There is no mention whatsover in the first reference of anyone named "Anderson", nor is there any mention that "Master Teacher" founded and/or heads the Academy. For all we know, it could be run by a board of directors and sell private shares of stock. The second source never mentions anyone named Anderson either. The most it says directly is: "Master Teacher is the supreme authority, nobody in the cult can question his apparently divine wisdom." It also says, "Not only does the Master Teacher claim he is Jesus but he require constant attention to be focused on him." The statement is as far-fetched as the other statement is self-aggrandizing. I doubt that anything in this reference meets ], or ], but if you want to add it back in, then according to the guidelines you should be very careful to quote the source, exactly, to avoid having WP be considered a primary source of its own, and you yourself take full liability in the case that you do not quote it directly. See ] "''Avoid paraphrases or inexact quotes or relying on memory when making contentious observations or assertions - and be ready to provide sources or withdraw comments if challenged''" ] 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 1) Why have we merged in the Anderson biography? 2) Is there any doubt that the Master Teacher is the head of the Endeavor Academy 3) Is the identity of the Master Teacher in question? 4) Do we doubt that books are written by the Master Teacher? Regarding your questions, we may certainly use the Endeavor website as a source for their leader. If this were a university we would use the official website for a source for their staff. -] 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Answers: '''1)''' Please see above conversation in "Original Research". '''2)''' Yes. '''3)''' Evidently so. '''4)''' I do, and haven't found any evidence in that regard even after reading all of the proceedings of the court trial records which never mention any Anderson at all. (I consider those court records very NPOV and reliable). '''5)''' The source is not in question. The material provided by the source must align itself with the guidelines. Please see those at ] as previously mentioned. ] 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::2) What source provides informaiton to contradict the sources that portray the Master Teacher as the head and founder of the Academny? 3) We have sources which say that Anderson is the Master Teacher, and none that say he isn't. 4) Amazon.com lists books by the Master Teacher. If the Master Teacher didn't write them, then who has? 5) I don't see anything in the guideline which prevents us from using the Academy website as a source for its staff. -] 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::FYI, here is a source which clearly ties together Endeavor Academy, Anderson, Master Teacher, and and calls him the "founder". |
|
|
::As does this source, with which we're already familiar. |
|
|
::Removing NPOV information which has already been verified is not helpful.-] 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I suggest including the sources before citing them to avoid confusion. Also those sources are both the same source, i.e. "rickross.com" and it has already been established that it is not NPOV. Rick Ross makes a living off of modern day witch hunting. ] 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't recall a consensus that Rick Ross is not trsutworthy on the identity of the Master Teacher. Where, exactly, did we decide that? The second reference is to CBS, as we all know. -] 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
